I really want help but having trouble saving my money. I watch your videos all the time to help me understand and i have the higher thinking skills to do it but I underestimate myself and i am full of doubt. I appreciate the work you do sir.
Is "Being and Time" a book that you would ever do a series on? If not, why? I'm wondering what you might see as possible weaknesses in Heidegger's philosophy.
Right now, I'm sure you know, I'm doing the Half Hour Hegel series on the Phenomenology of Spirit, crowdfunded here - www.patreon.com/drgbsadler Before I consider doing another "big book" (like Being and Time, The Republic, Aristotle's Metaphysics) as a whole, using that approach, I have to finish this one. And since it requires so much time and work, I have to make sure that it's financially viable for me to commit to that level of work I do have plans to do a few core concept videos on Being and Time
Thank you Dr sadler, it was not just being overwhelmed. I am a working class person, I grow up in poverty and do not want the debt that comes with a degree or PhD.
I am a undergraduate and i got confused about my assignment. A misunderstanding arose, Does that mean my intellect is not well developed?. Would like some feedback sir.
I don't know you or your case. If you'd like to book a tutorial session, I can take the time to do that, and give you feedback that might actually be on-point
Is this, perhaps, where Nietzsche parts from Hegel? Specifically referring to Nietzsche’s taking up of Hegel’s pronunciation of the Death of God - is Nietzsche saying, by deflating the intellect, that Hegel see the unity of God and Geist and consequently understands Geist with the qualities of good (infallibility of the intellect in this case), whereas Nietzsche understands God with the qualities of Geist (fallible, etc.). So where Hegel sees the death of god as the liberation and actualization of Geist as self-knowing which is to be celebrated, Nietzsche sees the death of god as “holy shit (unintentional pun), humanity is in control - we possibly cannot bare this task”
In other words, Hegel’s idea that religion progresses into philosophy (the epistemic system of the future) and non-problematic - because Geist is God, Geist used correctly can proceed without error (in the form of ‘good’ philosophy). Nietzsche, on the other hand, sees that Hegel’s understanding of Geist is all wrong, and flips the point of reference (Hegel defines Geist in terms of God - Nietzsche defines god in terms of Geist). If Geist is deeply fallible (as it is) we don’t end up in Hegel’s idealized vision, but rather in a weird, paradoxical, self-injurious condition
So...does Nietzsche believe in such a thing as Truth, meaning concrete facts about an objective world? E.g. A tree is a tree regardless of what we call it or whatever "language games" we're playing.
Gerald Sword From my readings of Nietzsche, it doesn't seem like it. He coined the term "Perspectivism" which is the position that what we consider to be "truths" are really just our conceptions of the world and that there can be many perspectives which are "true" on some level even if they contradict each other. Nietzsche seems to completely reject the existence of some "absolute" or "objective" truth, because even such an idea of truth is colored by perspective (this is actually kind of his criticism against Kant's "noumenon").
How often do philosophical types allow themselves to sink into the Dionysian/Will? To get lost in...Isn't that what Nietzsche was pointing to there being a lack of?
Has humanity lost its natural function/response to live because of the intellect? Would that response be seen as moral in the conventional sense of the word?
If we are all going to sink back into the godhead/Dionysus, why do we struggle? What would Nietzsche answer be to this question? The Will that I possess is Will, so it is not Willing to be dominated. I'm sorry for blowing up your video. You got me in the thinks.
Yes, but it has been a year or so. I think that he believed in a balance being found between the Apollonian and Dionysian, like in the tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles. I guess sinking back into the Godhead/Dionysian/lose of the Self would be closer to Schopenhauer's response? I guess? Sorry, I myself had sank into the Dionysian sea last night when I posted this. I sat in my "row boat, trusting the weak craft." I sat "peacefully, supported by and trusting in the principium individuationis." However, my balance wasn't there, I lost sight of Apollo, and Dionysus threw me overboard. Socrates would not have approved.
love the series!, very thought provoking for me
Well, there's more where that come from
I really want help but having trouble saving my money. I watch your videos all the time to help me understand and i have the higher thinking skills to do it but I underestimate myself and i am full of doubt. I appreciate the work you do sir.
Thank you, Dr. Sadler. You're a rad dude.
Is "Being and Time" a book that you would ever do a series on? If not, why? I'm wondering what you might see as possible weaknesses in Heidegger's philosophy.
Right now, I'm sure you know, I'm doing the Half Hour Hegel series on the Phenomenology of Spirit, crowdfunded here - www.patreon.com/drgbsadler
Before I consider doing another "big book" (like Being and Time, The Republic, Aristotle's Metaphysics) as a whole, using that approach, I have to finish this one. And since it requires so much time and work, I have to make sure that it's financially viable for me to commit to that level of work
I do have plans to do a few core concept videos on Being and Time
Thank you Dr sadler, it was not just being overwhelmed. I am a working class person, I grow up in poverty and do not want the debt that comes with a degree or PhD.
where did you find the fable? great video btw
In the text
I am a undergraduate and i got confused about my assignment. A misunderstanding arose, Does that mean my intellect is not well developed?. Would like some feedback sir.
I don't know you or your case. If you'd like to book a tutorial session, I can take the time to do that, and give you feedback that might actually be on-point
Useful.
Noted
Very thought provoking. Had to laugh at "borrowed glory".
Yes, that is indeed a kind of deception. . .
Is this, perhaps, where Nietzsche parts from Hegel? Specifically referring to Nietzsche’s taking up of Hegel’s pronunciation of the Death of God - is Nietzsche saying, by deflating the intellect, that Hegel see the unity of God and Geist and consequently understands Geist with the qualities of good (infallibility of the intellect in this case), whereas Nietzsche understands God with the qualities of Geist (fallible, etc.). So where Hegel sees the death of god as the liberation and actualization of Geist as self-knowing which is to be celebrated, Nietzsche sees the death of god as “holy shit (unintentional pun), humanity is in control - we possibly cannot bare this task”
In other words, Hegel’s idea that religion progresses into philosophy (the epistemic system of the future) and non-problematic - because Geist is God, Geist used correctly can proceed without error (in the form of ‘good’ philosophy). Nietzsche, on the other hand, sees that Hegel’s understanding of Geist is all wrong, and flips the point of reference (Hegel defines Geist in terms of God - Nietzsche defines god in terms of Geist). If Geist is deeply fallible (as it is) we don’t end up in Hegel’s idealized vision, but rather in a weird, paradoxical, self-injurious condition
Nietzsche was never with Hegel
So...does Nietzsche believe in such a thing as Truth, meaning concrete facts about an objective world? E.g. A tree is a tree regardless of what we call it or whatever "language games" we're playing.
Gerald Sword
From my readings of Nietzsche, it doesn't seem like it. He coined the term "Perspectivism" which is the position that what we consider to be "truths" are really just our conceptions of the world and that there can be many perspectives which are "true" on some level even if they contradict each other.
Nietzsche seems to completely reject the existence of some "absolute" or "objective" truth, because even such an idea of truth is colored by perspective (this is actually kind of his criticism against Kant's "noumenon").
We'll be discussing that shortly in the other videos. . . .
Truth is historical (i.e. anthropomorphic). I don't know what I'm talking about, but that sounded smart, right?
I am sorry Dr sadler for my behavior. I have withdrawal from my course, it was too much and i was overwhelmed.
I don't see that you did anything wrong. Sorry to read that you got overwhelmed
What's the remedy for our plight? Dionysus?
How often do philosophical types allow themselves to sink into the Dionysian/Will? To get lost in...Isn't that what Nietzsche was pointing to there being a lack of?
Has humanity lost its natural function/response to live because of the intellect? Would that response be seen as moral in the conventional sense of the word?
If we are all going to sink back into the godhead/Dionysus, why do we struggle? What would Nietzsche answer be to this question? The Will that I possess is Will, so it is not Willing to be dominated. I'm sorry for blowing up your video. You got me in the thinks.
Not according to Nietzsche, no. You've read the Birth of Tragedy, right?
Yes, but it has been a year or so. I think that he believed in a balance being found between the Apollonian and Dionysian, like in the tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles. I guess sinking back into the Godhead/Dionysian/lose of the Self would be closer to Schopenhauer's response? I guess? Sorry, I myself had sank into the Dionysian sea last night when I posted this.
I sat in my "row boat, trusting the weak craft." I sat "peacefully, supported by and trusting in the principium individuationis." However, my balance wasn't there, I lost sight of Apollo, and Dionysus threw me overboard. Socrates would not have approved.